Talk:Bosnian genocide denial/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mhare (talk · contribs) 09:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I will go through the article later. Mhare (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

GA progress

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The article uses well known authoritative sources for the matter in question, like ICTY, Human Rights House Foundation, OHR and others. Media used for referencing is well established, and includes The Guardian, Huffington Post, Washington Post and others. On that point I do not have any objections.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article covers major aspects and is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I didn't find any bias in the article as it follows neutral point of view, as this was much improved in recent edits I have been watching.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   History shows no edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images used in the article follow Wikipedia policies.

7. Overall: The article is well done, and follows all Wikipedia guidelines.

   Pass/Fail:

Discussion:

Drive-by comments/suggestion/remarks:

1 From User:Eisfbnore :

• I'm not gonna hijack this review from Mhare, but I'd like to make some quick, cursory comments.

• I am not certain that it suits the article to have the blockquote from ICJ displayed in the lede. The lede should be more summarising and authoritative, in WP's own words. It is indeed an important quote, but it should be moved further down IMHO.
• The section Background is too short and arrives without further ado at its conclusion. There is a whole lot more to be said here. Of course, one needs to draw the line somewhere (I appreciate that this is a conflict with very deep historical roots), but we need a whole lot more here.
• "Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia at the time," – at what time?
• "Sonja Biserko […] draw parallels from other examples of negationist historical revisionism and denialism, such as Armenian and Rwandan genocide denial." – grammar
• "She noticed that denial, particularly in Serbia, is present most strongly in political discourse, in the media, in the sphere of law, and in the educational system." – 'noted' rather. Also in which of those fields is it most vividly present? I can imagine that there's a hierarchy or economy of attention going on here.
• We have "culture of denial" twice in this para, both instances for some reason enclosed within scare quotes.
• "Denial of the Srebrenica genocide takes many forms in Serbia". I don't think the italics and the scare quotes together are compliant with MOS rules. Also, why is this quote so important to highlight? I haven't looked at the source, though I can imagine they have arrived at more provocative/disturbing/curious conclusions in it.
• The prose is at places too repetitive, resulting in a lack of flow. For instance, we have "It has been alleged/stated/claimed/disputed" in quite close proximity; same with Biserko's time at the org's helm.
• I don't think the paragraph Readings and presentations is encyclopedic, for a lack of a better word. It looks clumsy with the bullet points and ELs in the prose. You should rather whip up a proper bibliography.

Those are simply some issues I noted upon a brief look at the article. Might return later for a more thorough review, if y'all feel inclined. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 05:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Response by nominator:

We have time, there is no pressure - I would like to make few comments on @Eisfbnore:'s suggestions and remarks. I would go through points in no particular order, one by one.

• paragraph Readings and presentations - there are some really important websites linked there, which should be emphasized rather than pushed into External links, while being really a presentations and not in form of research papers or books; I have seen similarly formatted subsection where it was obviously perceived as appropriate - maybe if you haven’t opened it, please take your time and visit those links so that you can attest to what kind of presentations these are, and maybe we can leave it as it is or renamed it Bibliography but noting that these are particular presentations.
• I don't think that italic is necessary for this statement either: "Denial of the Srebrenica genocide takes many forms in Serbia"; but as an emphasized statement without italic it's a descriptive of general view on the problem/topic, but it's also a tamed expression (yes, there are many more statements that could be seen even more disturbing/provocative), which could be important in an environment where writing about these topics often provokes outcry and opposition from editors who do not think the statement(s) or article is neutral; quotations in general are used sometimes in Balkan scope, almost as a symptom of Balkan-editing-warring PTSD, where such quotations are believed to contribute to better sense of credibility than (p)reformulated prose, however, some quotations in this article should remain IMO.
• I agree that "culture of denial" should be stripped of these scare quotation marks, but shouldn't we emphasis it as a term.
• Grammar should be fixed - suggestions?
• I will personally move quotation from lede to more befitting place, say to background (if someone has not already done so).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, just few hours ago, Calthinus did some extensive work on grammar and improvement of sentence style through out the piece, and whom I'd like to thank in particular, so maybe some of the expressions are better now.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the swift response, Santasa99. I think this a very worthy article on a depressing topic, but it needs a thorough copyedit for many reasons. One is to ensure text-source integrity, so that the article reflects the scholarly consensus on the topic. Another is to weed out remaining balkanisms in the prose—the article needs to be rewritten in plain English observing English grammatical norms. It also needs a check for close paraphrasing: Earwig's Copyvio Detector reveals an 80 % risk of violation. Most of the identical passages are quotes, I know, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere—we can't have that many and that long quotations in our article. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 05:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, part of the article quotations could and should be trimmed or paraphrased. I also think that "close paraphrasing" is not the issue here. I have thoroughly checked several times and except these direct quotation, as you yourself pointed out, and which I am going to revise (especially those in Living Marxism section), there are no real paraphrasing problems - for instance, in case of Tablet Mag most quotations are related to Rosenssaft statements, the rest refers to the long names of organizations and some common legal terms that are in frequent use and have nothing to do with the article per se. Few of the quotations are necessary, in my opinion, such as part of the definition from Genocide convention and Meron's conclusion, which should be placed in Quote box template on the side, Bora Ćosić and Rosenssaft remarks should remain but trimmed (I noticed that many GA and FA using this method frequently). For grammar, style and text-integrity I have relied on User:Philip Cross, who appears to be native speaker, possibly/probably British himself, interested in international politics, media and journalism (among other), and who followed article creation and build up closely (Calthinus also made number of improvements). However, if you have concrete suggestions, you are most welcomed to present them?

Further, I would like to hear what exactly you think are "balkanisms", and it would be helpful if you can point to its examples, as you perceived them. As for need for "thorough copyedit" to ensure article "reflects the scholarly consensus", as this doesn't sounds reassuring, I hope you have concrete objections and examples where this is not the case.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, sorry about that "balkanism" comment, that was a bit facetious. My apols. What I meant was that the article's sentence structure and overall syntax reads a bit non-native and pedestrian to me. There are quite a few passages that need a solid copy-edit for clarity and cohesion. Like for instance,

• These two aforementioned courts have only ruled differently with regard to direct responsibility in perpetrating acts of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Meanwhile, villages surrounding Srebrenica, which in fact belonged to Serb population, were heavily fortified and militarized, with villages like Kravica being used to store caches of weapons and ammunition, and from which Serbs launched attacks on Bosnian Muslim villages, as well as on the town of Srebrenica itself
• Similar to Rwandan genocide denial, Nanjing Massacre denial, Holocaust denial and Armenian genocide denial, revisionists and denialists often claim that the designation of genocide is result of international political conspiracy, which invoked violence in the first place, which is than further exaggerated or completely invented

These sentences are quite difficult to parse, and could do with rephrasing. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 08:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to structure the discussion this way, I don't think I deleted anybody's comment. I did welcome Eisfbnore inputs, and as I see nominator is more than willing to fix parts of the article. I really have nothing substaintal to add regarding the suggestions already made. I tried to deal with other aspects of the article. Mhare (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, it just struck me that you could mention A Town Betrayed for a different type of revisionism, which nevertheless does not devolve into outright denial. I remember quite vividly the furore it created when it was broadcast in Norway. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 17:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Santasa99 if grammar remains an issue, give me a ping and I will try to get around to more fixes. Cheers! --Calthinus (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Calthinus on your engagements, also thanks Eisfbnore good suggestions. I waited few days to see if anyone is willing to take on above comments and proposals, but I well probably have few changes to offer during the weekend or earlier - those quote-boxes work fine when I tested them. As for those sentences, it would be helpful if you guys (or anyone who reads this) could give some concrete suggestions how to rephrase them, without loosing meaning and/or context. I was hoping User:Philip Cross might drop by too. Anyway, thanks to all, for now, and thanks to reviewer User:Mhare for being patient - I will report on possible changes before the end of the week.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, Eisfbnore, could you give a rough outline of a small paragraph or at least sentence or two on A Town Betrayed? I really think it's a good idea, and a relevant example to include into the article.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Santasa99, Great then! I will wait for the end of week for finishing this review. Mhare (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I expanded on "Background" using and rephrasing some prose from "main article" - it was really necessary as the section was just one line and one block-quote, which is now moved into quote-box.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys, i have some things i want to add from that Taylor source. Should i wait or make some additions (as i see at the moment Santasa is doing some adds and fixes as per recommendations here).Resnjari (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You and your ideas/additional prose are welcomed, Resnjari. I finished what i believe was priority, and I am awaiting for some inputs on that and on comments I made above earlier - for instance, there is good suggestion to include some views about revisionist documentary A Town Betrayed and it would be great if Eisfbnore could work on that one to include a paragraph, as they seem well acquainted with reactions and stir surrounding that documentary; also some sentences' style is noted as shaky, so I don't know, maybe if you could wait a day to see if we could wrap-up this. But, what ever happens we will certainly include your ideas, whether with additional fixes if they are deemed necessary or as a whole new addition to confirmed GA - however, you should feel free to decide (I have moved your comment to here/Talk:Bosnian genocide denial/GA1).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

ok. Just a heads up on my side. I got the edits ready to go (it’s mainly refs and a few sentences), but won’t proceed, until you guys give the all clear. I'll wait till tomorrow. Ping me, when ready. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a bit short on time atm, but maybe I'll get round to writing a para someday. Also note this thread on Twitter. FWIW. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 15:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The scholars Emir Suljagić, Jasmin Mujanović and Hariz Halilovich ought to be mentioned in the article, given their stature. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 15:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Eisfbnore, no pressure, whenever you have some spare time please write something about this documentary, that would be really great. Also, this Twitter tread is really interesting and informative, so I will do a little research to find out how and when it will be possible to read this report on denial they are mentioning. I am aware of some of Suljagić's work. I heard of Jasmin Mujanović - of Hariz Halilovich only through footnotes in the book "Politics of Identity in Post-Conflict States: The Bosnian and Irish experience", although he seem even more prominent than Mujanović(!?) - so I am sort of familiar with their work but not nearly enough. I have to explore a little bit (Mujanović maintains a neat website of his own). You know what it's like, there's always so much more out there than one can think of at times, or put into articles.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! As I can see everything that was a priority was done or fixed, and even expanded, and that there were no specific objections. I also see that there are some good suggestions, which can be reused later. I think that I will promote the article in GA, and since the discussion so far shows that everyone involved in it is in a position to cooperate then there is no reason to continue such good and productive cooperation after the promotion in GA.

It was most important for me to check the sources and prose and see if what was said in the article was consistent with its sources. Also, as far as we can conclude, everything else is well done, and as for some of the sentences, although they don't look bad to me, their correction can be done later, just like inserting the suggestions above. Thank you all for your attention and patience. Mhare (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Mhare, very much. I hope that we can continue to put up the good work, further improving this article, just as we have done so far, in a spirit of collaboration, good faith and a productive atmosphere. Also, I hope you, Eisfbnore, Calthinus, Resnjari, and others, will continue to contribute as well. Thank you to all - stay safe and take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)